Hey Dan: cocaine is a hell of a drug

Posted by: BooManChu at September 10, 2004 08:06 PM

OK, their probably forgeries. But forgeries can be used like boomerangs. Does anybody remember the Intelligence Documents regarding the Iraqi quest to purchase Nigerian Uranium? Seems to me that somebody did a pretty good analysis which pointed at our own CIA as the source of the documents, generated in a bid to discredit the adminstration. Did CBS take the bate of this sort of sting? To save the election, deeper analysis and investigation will be required.

Posted by: cool_1 at September 10, 2004 08:30 PM

From a guy on another forum I visit: Literal translation of Dan Rather’s segment: “We don’t have to report the truth until someone proves us wrong.”

I love how their HAND WRITING expert somehow trumps all the DOCUMENT experts blogs AND other MSM’s have brought out.

And they only addressed TWO issues with the documents, and badly at that.

Posted by: Spade at September 10, 2004 08:53 PM

I don’t care if you photocopy a ‘th’ 150 times, you can’t get it to superscript itself while the rest of the text around it stays the same.

The fact that Times New Roman has been out since 1931 proves nothing. The only way to get that kind of font on the right size paper (okay, they blew that part as well) would have been to typeset the damn thing.

I can see ANG clerks now, with their Guttenberg presses, hand-setting each line of print. GMAFB

Why doesn’t Dan Rather admit it now, Nixon’s plumbers were better than CBS’s scribes?

Okay, don’t hold your breath - like his hero, John Kerry, Master Rather does not make mistakes.

Stick a fork in it, Dan.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 10, 2004 09:18 PM

Here is some more interesting and relevant evidence that I found in a comment at the Hit and Run group blog:

The second thing that leads me to believe that the documents are faked is the signature and corresponding signature blocks. Anyone who ever served in the military knows what a “payroll signature” is and how everyone (and I do mean everyone!!) always signed their name that way. The signature block wouldn’t specify Jerry B. Killian and have that half-baked JB Killian signature. On official documents the signature block and the signature had to be an exact match or it would get bounced.

Check out the document where Bush asked to leave the Guard to go to Harvard Business school - the concurrance by LtCol Killian is a textbook “payroll signature”.

To find this text go to the link, then hit control F and type in the word “payroll”. I am not military or ex-military, so I can not vouch for the validity of this point, but if it is true, then it would consititute good evidence for the documents being forgeries.

Posted by: Average Joe at September 10, 2004 09:45 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

sigh, this is going to make life fun.

Posted by: Lakhim at September 10, 2004 09:48 PM

Has anyone interviewed the clerk typists in Bush’s unit what sort of typewriters they were using? That might serve to narrow the focus of the inquiry.

Posted by: Paul Danish at September 10, 2004 09:56 PM

Life is fun Lackey. But not for libs.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007779.php

“The Daily Kos has tried to rebut our deconstruction of the 60 Minutes forgeries. Naturally, Kos addresses only the least significant points, while never mentioning the most damning features of the memos.”

Posted by: jones at September 10, 2004 10:07 PM

Well Michele,

I just listened to Steven Hayes on O’Reilly Factor, that was hosted tonight by Tony Snow, say to the CBS former executive (sorry I wasn’t interested in his name) that the BLOGS are driving this story. Of course the CBS former executive rolled his eyes… but Steven stuck to his point, the blogs on the internet are challenging the MSM. When asked if CBS should provide access to the 1st generation of these documents to engage outside experts to determine authenticity, he rolled his eyes… again.

Keep the pressure up Bloggers!!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 10, 2004 10:20 PM

Documents using proportional fonts quite similar to Times New Roman were being produced by IBM typewriters as early as 1954 (yes, 1954).

Anyone who attempts forensic analysis of typography or signatures using scans of copies of faxes is a wanker.

The only way to prove or disprove those memos is

1) Examine the originals (or evaluate the earliest copies available).

2) Trace their provenance.

Personally, I think the content tends to match what we already know about Mr Bush’s final year of slackertude in TANG (1968-1971 seem to have been characterized by more responsible behavior).

However there are legitimate questions about the format (absence of letterheads, the possibility of non-standard abbreviations and signature blocks etc).

The blogs may be driving this story, but they’re careening in a fog.

Facts:

Over 60% of Americans can’t place Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. A similar percentage believe (erroneously) that Saddam Hussein, a secular Arab gangster, was involved in the plotting and execution of 9/11.

These are the folks who’ll be voting mostly for either Bush or Kerry in November.

The angels would weep if they gave a toss, which they don’t.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 10, 2004 10:23 PM

Six (6) of the Leading Experts in the Nation in this field have stated that the documents are forgeries as far as they can tell (including the Kerry supporter who wrote the program on typewriter font analysis and Bill Flynn, a computer document analysis expert).

All of them would love to see originals, which CBS does not have.

If you want the link to their names and qualifications, it is available.

Posted by: leaddog2 at September 10, 2004 10:39 PM

1. Take the Bush TexasANG 18 Aug 1973 memorandum PDF file.
2. Look blow it up on your screen to 1600% and study CYA.
3. Using a knife edge, observe some darkened pixels of the Y directly above darkened pixels of the A.
4. Fire up MS Word and type CYA on two consecutive lines.
5. On the first line select CYA and menu pick Format|Characters and select Character spacing tab. Turn on kerning for the current font size
6. On the second line select CYA and do the same thing turning OFF kerning.
7. Increase the zoom until the CYA in Word is the same size as the PDF display.
8. Using the cursor, examine the kerned CYA and see darkened pixels of the Y directly above darkened pixels of the A.
9. Examine the unkerned CYA and see NO darkened pixels of either letter directly above the other.

Therefore the memorandum in question manifests kerning. It remains for Mr. Rather to demonstrate kerning on ANY typewriter ever manufactured anywhere. Or was Mr. Killian (who did not type) a closet typesetter?

Extra credit: Shall we talk about creating center-justified proportional-font text on a typewriter?

Posted by: Steve Poling at September 10, 2004 10:54 PM

Dan Rather said tonight that CBS only has copies of the documents.

Where are the originals???

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINALS??

Show us the originals and this can be solved very, very quickly?

Notice Dan Rather never said these were typed?

SHOW US THE ORIGINALS!!!!

Posted by: patch at September 10, 2004 11:05 PM

Actually, Steve, centering proportional text on a typewriter is not that difficult, if the typewriter can handle it:

—move the carriage to the page center
—turn on “half backspace” mode
—key your text. Every character you key will move the carriage back half that character’s width
—turn off “half backspace” mode
—type your text again, this time with hammer action. Voila.

Starting in the 1980’s, when digital technology had shrunk sufficiently, you could simply type the text once. Hitting Return would dump the text buffer to the paper.

Posted by: gus3 at September 10, 2004 11:17 PM

As to the question about signatures: all official documents and records required “payroll” signature which was the full first name, middle initial and last name. In thirty years of service, I never signed any personnel or operational document for record or which otherwise was to be retained without using my payroll signature. I can not believe a squadron executive officer (CO, XO, Ops O, Maint O, Admin O or Safety O) would ever do this without using their payroll signature.

As to the CBS reporter refusing to use a source because he was “too pro-bush”… how are we to be certain that their sources were not “too pro-kerry”?

Unfortunately, unless someone turns within the CBS organization, I doubt we will ever find out their sources and confirm the fraudulent nature of the information. It would ruin CBS and Dan Rather, especially now that he has taken this personally and become actively involved in the defense himself. The have drawn a line in the sand and will not cross it for any reason what so ever.

Posted by: steve at September 10, 2004 11:20 PM

Uh. Jones… I’m not liberal. Lakhim might be, but I’m not.

Posted by: Lackey at September 10, 2004 11:28 PM

Out of curiosity, I did that, although any attempt to analyze the typography of that PDF is non-serious.

First, although my display generally anti-aliases text at screen resolution, the PDF zoomed to 16X shows no enlarged artifacts of anti-aliasing (“darkened pixels”)- they’re either black or white, so I can’t replicate that here.

However, the “A” in the CYA in the PDF is markedly separated from the “CY”, to the right, and doesn’t look at all kerned…

…while the kerned “A” in a Word doc (TNR 12pt) slides nicely under the Y and is very much kerned.

The spacing is entirely different.

So, your test appears to me to indicate the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.

Far more interesting, the “C” in the PDF appears to have a serif on its bottom limb, while the “C” in Word does not, although this could be an artifact of the faxing process alone.

Generally speaking, all three letters look quite different to me when enlarged beyond 5X and compared with those in Word.

At this level, the font in the PDFs doesn’t even look like the Times New Roman in Word.

However, the PDF is at best a scan of a copy of a fax of a copy, analyzed by wankers who think that experience with the user controls available in MS Word and access to zoom features makes them qualified forensic analysts.

As for any “experts” commenting on the PDF, the mind boggles at what people will stoop to during a particularly polarized and bitter election cycle (“I’m shocked… SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on in this establishment”).

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 10, 2004 11:39 PM

General Patton - When presented with what appears to be fraudulent documentation, it’s always a good idea to reference how many Americans can’t locate Afghanistan on the map.

You forgot to mention how many US households own a Labrador retriever, which has as much to do with this topic as your total specious observations.

But I have to say, you guys can spin like a top when you want to - very entertaining.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 10, 2004 11:55 PM

it’s always a good idea to reference how many Americans can’t locate Afghanistan on the map

T8, all I can say is ROFLMAO!! You’ve got a memory worthy of envy.

GPiF, where ya been hiding?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 11, 2004 12:19 AM

Torpedo Eight, your assumption that I’m a Kerry supporter is also entertaining.

IBM was manufacturing proportional font typewriters by 1941, and by 1954 was selling typewriters (not typesetting tools) that were capable of output more or less matching the Bush memos.

Are they fraudulent… or genuine?

I sincerely have no idea, since knowing the answer is a simple question of provenance.

CBS asserts they’re legit. The White House (as far as I know) has yet to contest them. Neither is a font of credibility.

Once knew someone who had a lab. The subject of inbreeding came up. He looked me in the eye and said, “Dogs know by instinct not to fuck their sisters.”

I suspect to this day he couldn’t place Afghanistan on a map, but the guy was a dead ringer for Jesus Christ and had an excellent singing voice.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 12:43 AM

In the neighbourhood cafe, eatin’ cheese and consortin’ with them thar surren’er monkies agin, I reckon, TexasGal.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 12:53 AM

Re the person who calls himself General Patton (an alias that implies gross disrespect to a fine soldier), the fact that there were some IBM typewriters in the 70s “more or less matching the Bush memos” is immaterial.

“more or less” doesn’t do the job. They need to exactly match. Have you got some genuine evidence of a specific typewriter that would do so? Has CBS offered such an example?

Spend an hour looking at the blogs investigating this subject and you will find reproductions of the actual type from the forgery and from devices that someone thought might “more or less” match. The examples clearly show that they do not match.

Equally examples now online show that extracts from the forgery do match MS Word output.

Obviously this bogus GP is not much interested in evidence.

Posted by: OzMC at September 11, 2004 01:01 AM

OzMC, sounds to me like you don’t know much about George Patton, nor how highly respected he is here in France.

Now, about these IBM typewriters. The original blog flurry was started by people who were asserting that the superscript “th” and proportional, TNR-like font was simply impossible to achieve with a 1972 era typewriter. As it turns out, in 1972 the Air Force was awash in IBM Selectrics and Executives, the latter being capable of both functions. Hence, the original blog “take” on the whole issue was based on complete ignorance (the assumption that only monotype typewriters without superscripted “th”s were available to TANG in 72).

There is still some question as to the availability of TR on the executive model, but it’s a well-known fact that both Apple and MS spent huge sums of money replicating scalable font versions of Times Roman precisely because it was a standard IBM typewriter font.

The memos don’t match MS Word, either. I’ve seen a radically reduced animated GIF that gives a dramatic first impression of matching, but close examination of the PDF with a typescript in Word, even generously put, only matches “more or less”, which as you say, “doesn’t do the job”.

My point is that the only way to resolve it is by provenance and access to the originals. Anything less is time-wasting amateur sleuthing.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 01:30 AM

Slight change of topic:

Today’s Ziggy could not have been timed better.

Posted by: gus3 at September 11, 2004 02:03 AM

10-4 gus3. With that, I’m off to read the funnies, and bid the 70% utterly moronic, 20% mediocre and 10% quite intelligent and pleasant postings of the Command Post Blog adieu once again.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 02:15 AM

Gee, it’s amazing. I’ve been reading comments from guys who were selling and serving IBM typewriters back in the 70s and since, and they say those typewriters were physically incapable of doing what appears in the forged documents.

But some Frenchman calling himself Patton is sure that they could. Of course the French know everything and can do everything — except maybe protect themselves from the Germans.

So the CBS documents must be right, since they have the endorsement of a Frenchman.

Posted by: OzMC at September 11, 2004 02:41 AM

Hey OZmC, I’ll say it one more time:

IBM was selling proportional space font typewriters in 1941, and by 1954 they had fonts very much like TNR. By the late 60s superscripted characters were common.

If these are the features you’re referring to, then the blogs you’ve been reading aren’t accurate.

As for your remarks about the French re the Germans, you display your complete ignorance on your sleeve, right along with your fuzzy thinking.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 02:57 AM

Hullo. It’s official from French Patton.

The French really beat the Germans in WWI and WWII.

We’re into parallel universe territory here. The CBS documents must be right in one of those universes. Probably the same one where France won WWI and WWII.

Posted by: OzMC at September 11, 2004 03:09 AM

Well, now GPIF has left we can concentrate on the truth.
Fact. The Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt mentioned in the memo dated August 18 1973, was in fact honorably discharged March 1, 1972. oops

Fact. The smug, superior beings like Don and GPIF don’t stop shoving their stupidity dressed as intellect down our throats but never supply a valid email address or website. Cowards.

Posted by: bascule at September 11, 2004 04:43 AM

OZmC, either you’re just a twit who mistakes taking cheap shots for wit, or you might want to develop your reading skills a bit more before responding to my posts.

Last I heard, the Germans romped across France in June 1940 and occupied half the country for more than four years, while fascist members of the French government took care of the rest. From what I hear, most people had a lousy time.

Re the memos, I think I was pretty clear earlier, but I’ll paraphrase my opinion for those who may be stalled at a 3rd grade reading level:

Them memos could be ok, but they seem sorta fishy to me. Dunno if they’re forged or what. Could be. The formats, abbreviations and signature blocks are a little strange, and there ain’t no letterhead.

Hey Bascule, Staudt’s retirement date is a docking big sign the memos may be forged, but not proof (what with good ol’ boy networks being what they are, and retired officers still worried about covering their behinds and political connections etc). So yeah, the memos may be forged, but nobody in their right mind is going to come to that conclusion based on the typography surviving in a PDF‘d scan of a copy of a fax of a copy of who-knows-what. That is, unless they have a political ax to grind.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 06:44 AM

Sorry, I didn’t leave an email address because I get well over 200 spams a day already (the problem’s covered, but why invite more?).

Here it is if you want to write to me- I just created a special mailbox via my ISP for email from this blog:

cpost at nordultra period see oh em

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 06:51 AM

GPiF Interesting to note that with this visit you at least have a decent comment to make, unlike some of your previous excursions. How’s that Ex-Pat status holdin’ out? Gonna vote for the Liar (M79 is my friend), or…???

Now with all those nuanced comments out of the way…

“1) Examine the originals (or evaluate the earliest copies available).”

Originals? The ‘memo to file’ oughta be really interesting…

Memo to Self. Type this stuff on that ol’ Remington, and stash it in the ShoeBox in my closet.

Memo to GPiF - CBS does NOT have the originals. Rather says don’t worry. Be happy. If I say we’ve examined the documents we can vouch for their authenticity.

If I was to ask you if your Lab was papered, do you think I’d accept a second generation photocopy as proof positive???

“2) Trace their provenance.”

Rather SAYS they came from Kilian’s ‘personal file’. Is that not good enough for you???

Woops. Kilian’s widow says HE DIDN‘T USE A TYPEWRITER.

Good grief.

“Personally, I think the content tends to match what we already know about Mr Bush’s final year of slackertude in TANG (1968-1971 seem to have been characterized by more responsible behavior).”

We can tell by the tone of that one that you’ve done a lot of research. Keep up the good work.

BTW - Were you in Cambodia with Kerry on Christmas day 1968? Just curious.

“However there are legitimate questions about the format (absence of letterheads, the possibility of non-standard abbreviations and signature blocks etc).”

You bet there are LEGITIMATE questions. You know what? They’re going to continue to be asked. BTW. Were you clerking for Kilian?

“The blogs may be driving this story, but they’re careening in a fog.”

And here I thought that you were going to shed a little light on the subject for us mortals on this side of the pond. Now you tell us that we’re in LONDON.

Facts:

“Over 60% of Americans can’t place Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. A similar percentage believe (erroneously) that Saddam Hussein, a secular Arab gangster, was involved in the plotting and execution of 9/11.”

The only FACT I see is that part about SH being a secular gangster.

“These are the folks who’ll be voting mostly for either Bush or Kerry in November.”

Ooooh. Nice catch. Those must be the same folks that are right across the Chunnel from you.

“The angels would weep if they gave a toss, which they don’t.”

Uhhh. Why? Politics ain’t Tiddlywinks. I learned that from another more frequent visitor here by the name of Don. He’s even more dismissive of us rank amatuers than you are.

The italicized portion Posted by General Patton, in France at September 10, 2004 10:23 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 11, 2004 08:16 AM

Lackey,

I apologize.

My comment is for Lakhim. Again sorry.

GPiF,

You haven’y missed a beat. Where were you when Reagan died? Thought you would be posting, being such a fan….

Posted by: jones at September 11, 2004 09:51 AM

General Patton, good to see you again. I say so without sarcasm, I think you know that… I am sorry only that your visit will be so short.

As I have often found, the General is quite reasonable, yet I still think he is wrong… regardless, I think many of us are reading too much into what he says.

I think he is right, a PDF of a photocopy is not really enough to judge whether a document is a forgery; and he’s also right about the proportional spacing typewriters…

But that doesn’t really matter. CBS cannot or will not say what they have done to show that the documents are genuine, and I would say the burden of proof is on them. Especially considering all of the fishy things that have been pointed out; such as the letterhead and the signature and the fact that the line breaks, etc, are all where Word would put them and not where a Selectric would put them:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

I have wondered if CBS didn’t get a handwritten memo that someone thoughtfully typed into Word. But it seems they only ever had a photocopy.

Doesn’t matter. If they can’t prove it came from Killian, why should any of us care about the typeface?

Take care, General… I wish you’d stick around.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at September 11, 2004 10:34 AM

That’s all very nice, but….

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL

Posted by: Don at September 11, 2004 10:42 AM

That’s all very nice, Don: BUT

Posted by: Michele at September 11, 2004 10:46 AM

*Cap’n DOC*

>with this visit you at least have a decent comment to make

Meaning I happened to say something you agreed with, is all (grin).

>Gonna vote for the Liar (M79 is my friend), or…???

They’re both bums, and Nader’s running his own scam.

>Type this stuff on that ol’ Remington, and stash it in the ShoeBox in my closet.

I don’t think so.

>CBS does NOT have the originals. Rather says don’t worry.

As if I don’t know that. Cute. Dan Rather has his weaknesses, but he’s not actually a fool, so it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

>If I was to ask you if your Lab was papered, do you think I’d accept a second generation photocopy as proof positive???

My point, spot on. Don’t even try to analyze those PDFs graphically. The content’s interesting (and has yet to be denied by the White House as far as I know), but doesn’t have much weight until a clear line of provenance is vetted etc.

>Rather SAYS they came from Kilian’s ‘personal file’. Is that not good enough for you???

Not specific enough for me, especially given the questions about the memos’ format, non-standard abbreviations and lack of letterhead.

>Kilian’s widow says HE DIDN‘T USE A TYPEWRITER.

Meaningless. He could have had a secretary, even for “memos to file”.

>We can tell by the tone of that one that you’ve done a lot of research. Keep up the good work.

The record speaks for itself, and I didn’t do the research, I just read it.

>BTW - Were you in Cambodia with Kerry on Christmas day 1968? Just curious.

I was in Asia that day, actually, and got a very nice sports watch and a bottle of Brut (grin).

>You bet there are LEGITIMATE questions. You know what?

I used the word “legitimate” to differentiate those from any issues regarding the typography, which could have been produced by a typewriter easily available within DoD at that time.

>BTW. Were you clerking for Kilian?

Shows you haven’t read my posts carefully. I have doubts about the memos.

“The blogs may be driving this story, but they’re careening in a fog.”

>And here I thought that you were going to shed a little light on the subject for us mortals on this side of the pond.

I tried, but I didn’t use a foglight.

The only FACT I see is that part about SH being a secular gangster.

The other factoids I mentioned are well-documented. Meanwhile I have no doubt, Cap’n, that you can place Afghanistan on a map and never said you couldn’t.

>Those must be the same folks that are right across the Chunnel from you.

You lost me there, Cap’n. Most UK citizens don’t vote in US elections (as you know).

>Don. He’s even more dismissive of us rank amatuers than you are.

If you’re seriously concentrating on analyzing the typography of those PDFs, you’re a “rank amateur” for sure.

The point of my original post was that the blogged questions about the memos began with typography questions that were based on complete ignorance.

However, there are aspects of the memos unrelated to their typography which do raise legitimate questions about their legitimacy, and could bear a closer look. This will no doubt happen. So far there’s no proof either way. They could be legit, they could be fakes.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 10:47 AM

jones, I wasn’t aware of any obligation on my part to prove I’ve got any particular personal sentiment by posting it on CP.

Bush ain’t no Reagan.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 10:53 AM

GPiF LOL. Haven’t been blogging much lately, have you?

Typography MAY be the one thing that ends up killing this horse, but it is far from being the ONLY thing that has been noted.

I’ll bet my 2bhat that they’re forged.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 11, 2004 11:02 AM

Just wondering why you can’t keep your story staight.

Posted by: jones at September 11, 2004 11:12 AM

Gabriel,

>I think many of us are reading too much into what he says

This happens without fail when I don’t precisely tow the neocon line on CP, which is nearly always. The less, uhm, careful readers immediately assume I’m pro Kerry, or worse, a democrat. Both assumptions are false.

Reagan, more frequently in his actions, somewhat less in his words, practiced a style of politics that had little friction with my own specialized political outlook (even if I did usually disagree with him on the ME). Plus, I thought he was a good guy with a better mind and leadership qualities than many people gave him credit for.

As I’ve said before (not in this thread), anyone who skips doing cabinet meeting homework to watch a favourite movie on TV, and then has the guts to admit it, knows his priorities and is willing to stand by ‘em (grin). Er, even if it was the Sound of Music… my mom liked that one, too- so much so, she took her kids to Salzburg to waltz around all the spots the Von Trapps did. So I’ve got at least a feel for how an adult could be attracted to that flick. ‘Sides, Julie Andrews was (and still is) kinda cute.

> If they can’t prove it came from Killian, why should any of us care about the typeface?

Good question, and I agree with what you imply.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 11:14 AM

It’s funny, though; while I concede that a Gallup poll of 1989 showed that 14% of American students can’t find America on a map, I haven’t seen such an authoritative source for the claim that 60% can’t find Afghanistan or Iraq (is it really so low as that?). Last time I heard the 60% statistic, it was German students who can’t find the Netherlands on a map.

I’m sure that’s not true, because probably 99% of European students, no doubt, can even find Burkina Faso and San Marino on a map, and can tell Tajikistan from Kyrgyzstan.

In other words, what I’m trying to say is, that a statistic about the geographic illiteracy of American students is worthless without any context. And that I’ve always wanted to visit San Marino.

Because I am deeply altruistic, I have located for you gentlemen the Roper Global Geographic Literacy survey for 2002.

http://google.nationalgeographic.com/search?access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&site=default_collection&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&ip=63.161.25.69&q=%22geography+literacy%22&filter=p

It is a PDF… some of the more interesting results:

Of the following countries: the United States, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain; the overall performance, out of 56 possible, was

Sweden: 40 correct
Germany: 38
Italy: 38
France: 34
Japan: 31
UK: 28
Canada: 27
US: 23
Mexico: 21

While only 13% of Americans can find Iraq or Iran on a map, less than 20% of students worldwide could find Iraq. Worldwide, few students can find Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan.

In no country could 50% of students locate Israel.

24% of French students could not identify their country as one that possesses nuclear weapons.

30% of Germans could not identify the Netherlands on a map.

When asked to identify 12 countries on a map of Europe, Americans on average get 3—students from the other countries average 5…

So you see, while American students are indeed stupid, they are only somewhat more stupid than students worldwide.

But you see how easy it is to quote an unflattering statistic in isolation.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at September 11, 2004 11:18 AM

I should clarify: the poll is not of “students” but of adults 18-24.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at September 11, 2004 11:22 AM

jones, my story is quite straight, and I don’t make any effort to keep it that way. You’re baiting me. Yawn.

Cap’n
>LOL. Haven’t been blogging much lately, have you?

Translation: I don’t neatly tow the neocon line on CP.

>Typography MAY be the one thing that ends up killing this horse,

If the originals (or even a high quality photocopy)ever turn up, that could happen.

>but it is far from being the ONLY thing that has been noted.

Uhm, that’s what I’ve been saying. Both of you are a little slow.

>I’ll bet my 2bhat that they’re forged.

I wouldn’t bet either way (I don’t like house games- not even blackjack).

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 11:26 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, I would advise considering carefully what the General has to say before arguing with him.

A non-troll to argue with is a treasure that all of us know is too rare to take for granted. I think the General improves the signal-to-noise ratio here greatly.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at September 11, 2004 11:36 AM

Would that be ‘Blackjack’ Pershing?

I ain’t THAT slow…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 11, 2004 11:37 AM

Gabriel, two points about my remark re Americans and maps:

1) It wasn’t in isolation. If an electorate is voting on a presidential election linked with a controversial war in Iraq, it might be more encouraging if more than 40% of them could place it on a map. I also mentioned that more than 60% of Americans believe (erroneously) that Saddam was involved in the plotting and execution of 9/11.

2) I didn’t compare the States to Europe, although your citation of stats about European geographic literacy does introduce that comparison and illustrates that people in the States do far worse than most Europeans on this basic measure of global awareness.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 11:43 AM

Very good points indeed, General.

If Americans so support the war in Iraq, I would hope that more than 40% of them would know where it was.

And if French people so oppose the war in Iraq, I might hope that more than 40% of them might know where Iraq was, as well.

But both hopes are disappointed, it seems, at least in the 18-24 bracket.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at September 11, 2004 11:59 AM

Gabriel, we disagree on some political stuff but usually find workable terms on objective issues because you carefully read the posts and react to their actual content without annoying, fuzzy headed attempts to bait or ridicule.

Jones and Cap’n don’t read carefully, and typically mistake schoolyard-style badgering for wit. This gets boring.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 12:08 PM

GPiF “…it’s a well-known fact that both Apple and MS spent huge sums of money replicating scalable font versions of Times Roman precisely because it was a standard IBM typewriter font.”

No, actually, it wasn’t. IBM selectrics in the 70’s came with two basic fonts Pica and Elite - one being 12 pitch; the other 10 pitch. The spacing was not porportional and did not contain the superscript capabilities available with today’s word processing software. With the use of personal computers becoming more widespread in the 80’s, the common font used was “Courier” - not Times New Roman.

IBM selectrics were commonly found in most offices - especially in government offices because of the huge volume of business that IBM did with all levels of government. Even at that, it’s hard to imagine a Lt. Col. sitting down at the office selectric and preparing a document entitled “CYA.” That’s so absurd, it’s laughable. If the Col. wanted to document some behavior or failure to perform, he would have simply called it a Memorandum to the File re: XXXX performance, or some such thing. Usually, a note on one’s calendar should suffice so the “CYA” memo looks almost paranoid, certainly obvious for something one would want to keep low-key and, well, foolish. From what we’ve learned of the Colonel in these past few days, he does not seem to have been a foolish person - quite the opposite.

According to the Colonel’s family, he didn’t have a typewriter or computer at home. Further, his widow stated that he did not type but made notes on whatever odd piece of paper was avaiable or simply kept a record of what he wanted to remember in his head.

To my recollection, Desk Top Publishing didn’t become available until the 80’s and even at that wasn’t widely available until the early 90’s. Again, what we are talking about is a memo supposedly typed in the Colonel’s office with whatever was available at the time in the Texas Air National Guard. Whether there may have been sophisticated typewriters that produced a type face that imitated Desk Top Publishing during that time, is not the case.

The questions are: what was available to the Colonel? How would he have made a notation? Why a memo to the file - especially one that could reflect badly on him? Why - in this one instance - would the Colonel break an ingrained habit of how he retained information, and why would he write a memo referring to a General who had long since retired?

There are too many questions that can’t be answered - especially by people who are no longer here to answer them. One only wonders what the gang who can’t shoot straight will come up with in the next 50 or so days. Whatever’s next in their bag of dirty tricks, if it’s anything like this nonsense, it won’t be pretty.

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2004 01:31 PM

I’m a Kerry supporter and I’m scared. Most of the evidence says that CBS obtained forged documents and tried to pass them off as genuine. CBS won’t say where the documents came from.
Why the hell not??!!!!
CBS won’t say who their experts are who confirmed the genuineness of the documents.
Why the hell not??!!!!
This makes Kerry look bad. Any intelligent person is going to assume the DNC or the Kerry campaign “found” these documents. And who will they blame?
Who will come out looking like a hero?
Draft dodging George, that’s who.

Posted by: Akefa at September 11, 2004 01:36 PM

Interesting comments from Gerry Kaplan who runs ibmcomposer.org:

Another point that is very suspicious is the centered heading. This is a snap to do with fixed spacing (like courier), but the text is centered using proportional spaced text, which means that the typist had to carefully measure the text prior to typing to calculate its exact center point. Typing a superscript, with all its steps, is simple compared to centering text proportionally without digital electronics.

…

Something that I think would be a good test for your website may be to reproduce the centered heading using MS Word and Times New Roman. If you can produce centered text that matches identically to the letterhead, it is, in my opinion, a true hoax. The reason is, because even if they were able to center text with a typesetting machine such as the composer, a PC (and good word processor), will center the text even more precisely, not at the “point” level, but rather on the twip level (1/1440th of an inch or 1/20th of a point).
—-

So, the experiment was done. The two letterheads matched pixel perfect and perfectly centered. These were done three months apart so the difficult calculations were done exactly correct and identically.

Then, the comparison with Microsoft Word. And, who would have thunk, a match. Come on, there is more chance that O.J. didn’t do it.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 11, 2004 02:13 PM

>No, actually, it wasn’t. IBM selectrics in the 70’s came with two basic fonts Pica and Elite

Yes, it was. The IBM Executive typewriter used a version of Times New Roman, and some models were capable of proportional spacing and superscripts.

I don’t think I mentioned Selectrics at all in my post (and didn’t intend to).

I must repeat again that the purpose of my original post was to point out that the blogsphere got started on this issue before the 60 Minutes airing even ended, with a simple assertion that it was impossible in 1972-3 to generate a document in proportional TNR with superscripts. This is incorrect, it could be easily done on an IBM Executive. Hence, the whole thing took off based on a totally wrong assumption. That was my only point, that bloggers may have driven the story, but they were careening in the fog.

There are lots of other possible problems with the memos, and the typography may eventually be one of them again. However, forensically analyzing typography from artifacts appearing on multiple generation PDF files is futile (and wankerish). Perhaps a high quality photocopy might yield more useful information, but only the original (or a carbon of it) would be definitive.

Finally, it’s unlikely this particular colonel would have typed any of this stuff himself. It would more probably have been the work of a secretary.

So, questions about whether he typed or could operate an IBM machine aren’t relevant to whether the documents could have been produced.

Careless readers who interpret this to mean that I’m asserting the memos are genuine will be mistaken.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 02:31 PM

“However, forensically analyzing typography from artifacts appearing on multiple generation PDF files is futile (and wankerish”

Just because you keep sayign that doesnt make it true. Is it ideal? Of course not. Definitive? Probably not. Futile? That is absurd. You are telling me you can learn nothing from looking at a photocopy? You’re own bloody arguments belie that. We know this was a proportional spacing machine with superscripts and a font with several defining characteristics clearly visable in the copy. That eliminates 99.99% of every typewriter in existence in 1973. That is nothing? Lets not protest too much there general.

Needless to say all this would be facilitated by CBS releasing their copy for examination by neutral parties, and disclosing where the original might be found. I expect that to happen about the same time Kerry releases his records.

Posted by: mark buehner at September 11, 2004 02:47 PM

Akefa, you should pressure your DNC chair to call for an investigation. Remember the lesson of Richard Nixon. It is not the crime. It is the cover-up. This could take down the whole Democratic Party akin to what Watergate did to the Republicans. I am a Republican. But, I’m not gloating because a one-party state even if it is Republican is not a good thing. Please, some Democrat with integrity step up and do something now!

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 11, 2004 02:54 PM

Well, assuming we are all “careful readers,” you are ignoring the basic facts:

1) Whether the document could “easily” have been prepared on an IBM Executive is not the issue.

2) Col. Killian did not type. If a secretary had prepared this memo, his/her initials would be at the bottom of the doc.

3)The common typewriter in use in the 70’s - particularly in government offices - was the IBM Selectric. Did the TANG even have the IBM Executive typewriters? I doubt it.

4) Apart from the fact that the format and language are absurd, the memo serves no useful purpose and could actually be damaging - to the Colonel.

5) Just out of curiosity, what is “a version of Times New Roman?” It either IS Times New Roman or it’s something else.

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2004 02:56 PM

Jim,

I was just on another website, I’ll try to grab the quote, where a former US Navy yeoman from the late 70’s and early 80’s says that in the active duty Navy at that time and a full time clerk he had seen Selectrics, but most people were forced to use much much older typewriters.

Also, no typewriter explains the other inconsistencies in the memos. Such as the lies to Hodges and other facts.

Posted by: Spade at September 11, 2004 03:10 PM

Usually, a note on one’s calendar should suffice so the “CYA” memo looks almost paranoid, certainly obvious for something one would want to keep low-key and, well, foolish

Jim!

I had just made this very same comment to someone earlier today. In my experience as a government employee, it was deemed more reliable to make a notation in my calendar on the date and time and concern about a subordinate in my own handwriting, rather than using a typewriter and placing a personal note in a file cabinet. Only time I would have made such a note in writing (typewritten memo) would have been to send it to a superior as a FYI but I sure would not have titled that memo CYA!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 11, 2004 03:16 PM

I also found this information on another blog from a poster over at Free Republic. Sorry for the cut and paste, but It’s a fascinating litany of points about these documents that you might be interested in.

This from a poster over at Free Republic:

(the following was borrowed from another poster here on FR - spread it around!):

Some have already been clarified, but here are the running discrepancies:

1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)
2. superscripts not generally available
3. Small “th” single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
4. 4’s produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4’s on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4’s are open at the top, to Rather’s forgeries, where the 4’s are closed at the top
5. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.
6. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
7. Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person’s position. This just has rank beneath the name.
8. Margins. These look like a computer’s unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.
9. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
10. Words run over consistent with word processor.
11. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops…until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
12. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.
13. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
14. No letterhead
15. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
16. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
17. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).
18. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970’s typewriter. (see #8)
19. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
20. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News)
21. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).
22. Bush’s grade would be abbreviated “1/Lt” not “1st Lt”
23. Subject matter bizarre
24. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
25. Kerning was not available
26. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: “Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job.” but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
27. Language not generally used by military personnel.
28. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
29. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
30. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
31. The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
32. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
33. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
34. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
35. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?
36. Acronym should be ORT, not ORET.
37. Last line of document 4 “Austin will not be pleased with this” is not in the same font and has been added!
38. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.
39. Lt Col Killian didn’t type
40. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
41. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
42. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
43. The forged documents used incorrect terminology (“physical examination” instead of “medical”)
44. There was no “receipt confirmation box” (required for orders)
45. The superscript “th” in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms)
46. CBS admits that it does not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never be authenticated positively…repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn’t be assured of authenticity.
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn’t.
48. May 4, 1972 “order” memo and the May 19, 1972 “commitment” memo typeface doesn’t match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian’s memorandum

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2004 03:21 PM

Way up above in these posts; Michele seems to have called Don a BUT……I completely agree !!

Posted by: dickmr at September 11, 2004 03:27 PM

Thanks for the 48 points ….half of those alone should put Rather out to pasture! Maybe he can bunk with some of the liberals on here. The stink of ‘losers’ is starting to follow Kerry and his America bashers around. Their nellie protests only digs their hole deeper.

Posted by: dickmr at September 11, 2004 03:37 PM

General: You were the first in the thread to mention Selectrics, at 1:30 am.

Posted by: gus3 at September 11, 2004 03:55 PM

Jim,

Is that all you have?

Now let us list the evidence used to “debunk” SBVT:

1. The Bronze Star citation for __, written by ? says shots were fired during the canal recovery.

2. O’neill defended Kerry from War Crime allegations in ‘96.

Add more if you have them

Posted by: jones at September 11, 2004 04:37 PM

3. A Bush volunteer showed up on a swiftie ad.

4. Ginsburg did legal work for Swifites and Bush’s campaign.

44 more to go Jim.

Posted by: jones at September 11, 2004 05:15 PM

ROFLMAO

Jones!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 11, 2004 05:19 PM

I have a few things to say on the subject:

Text

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records

Posted by: M. Simon at September 11, 2004 05:46 PM

GenP

You seem to be in love with the phrase describing the Citizen-journalists of the web as “careening into the fog.” I’m beginning to expect it at each of your postings tsk-tsking the fact-checkers who have revealed Dan Rather as the new CEO of JaysonBlair, Inc.

For those of us old enough to have spent a good deal of time on manual and electric typewriters (waving hand) and even those of us that once worked in the secretarial profession (again waving hand), the Aug. 18, 1973 memo on initial glance does, indeed, look very different from the documents we remember producing in the 1970’s.

I was an executive secretary in the mid-70’s (to the VP of Loan Servicing, American Savings and Loan, Whittier CA). In my whole department, I was the only one with an IBM Executive typewriter for two reasons. The machine was a balky bitch, and unless you were an extraordinarily accurate typist, you would be spending most of your time rewriting everything your produced because correcting a typo was a major undertaking due to the proportional type. I only used the Exec because my VP wanted his correspondence to be very crisp and professional. IIRC the font on my Exec was sans-serif and there was not a separate key for a superscript “th”. Most of the department had either older standard electric typewriters or a few Selectrics. And until a typewriter was beyond repair, it didn’t get replaced just because something ‘new’ was offered. And S&L in those days was an extraordinarily frugal business.

So, upon looking at the 8/18/73 memo, my first thought would have been “impossible” based on personal experience. Just because one’s first hunch in launching an investigation is not 100% accurate, it neither denigrates the hunch nor the investigators; for while it can be shown that there did exist some equipment that may move the hunch for “impossible” to “highly unlikely”, subsequent investigation has produced overwhelming evidence on so many other issues that the inacurracy is irrelevant.

Also, this animated gif visually demonstrates the implausibility of the authenticity of the 8/18/73 “memo.”

One last thing, then a suggestion. Look at the 8/18/73 “memo” again, then compare it with known memo of 9/5/73, and reconcile the obvious differences in type, font and format, even as the memos were only 2 1/2 weeks apart and from the same person. Try reproducing the 9/5/73 memo with default settings on your MSWord to make it a perfect match like the animated 8/18 one.

May I also suggest for those few boaters still rafting that river in Egypt, you are all welcome to make some easy money here.

First of all, thanks to the five people who have each pledged $100 a piece in addition to my $10,000 offering. Therefore, anyone who can reasonably recreate the CBS memos on equipment available in early 1972 will be receiving at least $10,500.

Posted by: Darleen at September 11, 2004 05:59 PM

Jones -

You’ve got me. The only other thing that I can come up with is that Lt. John O’Neill wore white socks in his TV debate with the long-haired, preppie John Kerry on the Dick Cavett show back in the 70’s. Does that count?

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2004 06:11 PM

mark buehner > “You are telling me you can learn nothing from looking at a photocopy?”

Obviously not. You just won’t prove beyond any doubt that it wasn’t typed in 1973 on an IBM Executive or other office machine with similar capabilities.

I do have to repeat things around here: My only point was that bloggers began all this with a completely erroneous assumption, that proportional TNR with superscripts couldn’t be typed in ‘73.

Jim, you seem to be a careful reader, many here aren’t. I think I generally agree with your observations, only adding that they don’t relate to the point of my original post (but are certainly valid things to consider apart from it). Times New Roman has many variants and versions, some under different names like Palatino.

Spade >Also, no typewriter explains the other inconsistencies in the memos.

Absolutely, which is why I have doubts about the memos.

TexasGal >CYA
There’s another bureaucratic red flag that I wasn’t aware of (and an example of a “legit” doubt inducer entirely unrelated to typography).

More Jim, best list of unambiguous, mostly content-oriented, dubious items I’ve seen. This is the sort of thing that makes me think, “with all these problems, tracing provenance is the only way to verify the credibility of these memos, because credibility is way damaged by their presence.”

Gus3, >You were the first in the thread to mention Selectrics, at 1:30 am
So I was… I said, “the Air Force was awash in IBM Selectrics and Executives”

Turns out the Executive was the proportional font-capable machine, which apparently by default carried a TNR font. Not an assertion that the memos were typed on an Executive, just an example of a machine available at the time that could do what the first bloggers on this story said couldn’t be done.

Darleen, you used an Executive, and it’s interesting and informative to hear your description of actually using it during that era. I can only add that in the last couple of days I’ve seen several examples of IBM proportional font, TNRlike typewriter output starting from 1954, most of it attributed to some version of the Executive (I do know it could be ordered with several different fonts, which apprently weren’t switchable, and that IBM commissioned a version of TNR in the mid-sixties presumably some sort of update on the TNR-like output I’ve seen from the mid-fifties).

With “careening in the fog”, I was saying that the first bloggers to go with the faked memos theory, even if they happened to be correct in that assumption, were correct by accident and using the wrong reasons.

No matter how ghastly the Executive was to operate for routine typing tasks, it existed, and was capable of doing the things bloggers initially cited as “impossible for a typewriter in 1973”.

That’s been my only point.

Even if the memos are demonstrated to be fakes fairly soon, whoever fed them to CBS will have accomplished their smear: In an election shaping up as close as this one, even a half a percentage point in the popular vote could alter the outcome in some swing states, tipping the election.

Textbook dirty politics.

I don’t personally buy the Karl Rove blowback theory- too many variables for a smart operator to depend on. I’d say CBS’s source wants Bush out.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 06:55 PM

Jim, I need to add, there are three or four items on the FR list I disagree with, but not enough to disagree with the doubts conveyed by the list as a whole.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 07:10 PM

Bush’s National Guard years

Posted by: TexasGal at September 11, 2004 07:11 PM

Oh BTW, on the Fox News Watch tonight the bloggers got full credit for not only driving this story to the point of investigation, but identifying all the various points of conflict and inconsistency. And much to the chagrin of some of the pundits they noted they have now been lumped together into a new acronym .. MSM.

Congratulations to all the bloggers who tore this apart and examined it!

Posted by: TexasGal at September 11, 2004 07:19 PM

The roll that the blogosphere and that individual bloggers have played in examining the veracity of 60 minutes’ documents is amazing! We are truly in a new era of news reporting, where interest groups and political agendas no longer wholly control the information we have access to.

I personally was disgusted with Mr. Rather’s, as well as CBS’ responce on Friday, September 10, 2004. So, apparently was my brother, Andrew Schouten of Redux (http://andrew_redux.blogs.com). He sent out the following email to CBS, 60 Minutes, Clear Channel, and Viacom.

From: Andrew Schouten [mailto:andrew_redux@direcway.com]
Sent: Sat Sep 11 12:39:13 2004
To: news47@47cbs.com
Cc: programming@47cbs.com; 60m@cbsnews.com; cctvinfo@clearchannel.com; nonmanagementdirectors@viacom.com; lisacdollinger@clearchannel.com

Subject: 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, and the Public Trust

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please be so kind as to inform the management of KGPE-47, Clear Channel Communications, CBS, and Viacom, that the behavior of Dan Rather and the 60 Minutes production staff is unacceptable. It amazes me that a news story such as the one aired by CBS on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 could be backed with the full name and credit of your fine organizations. Let me explain.

It is to the credit of the 60 Minutes’ investigative team that the story revealing new questions concerning President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard came to light as quickly as it did. Whether or not the staff properly vetted the documents is debatable and should be thoroughly discussed in public forums. When a journalistic enterprise such as 60 Minutes (and their parent CBS News) assumes the vital role of public watchdog, they are obligated by their role in the search for truth to become transparent and ethically beyond reproach, lest both the credibility of the story, as well as the shareholder value of the organization, be called inexorably into question.

Which brings me to Mr. Dan Rather and his defense of the story on Friday, September 10, 2004. His defense of the news segment was both obfuscatory and disingenuous, single-handedly setting a new low in broadcast television. In an event of such magnitude — the revelation of documents which allege that a sitting president was a deserter from his military service during an election year — your organizations are duty-bound to rise above Mr. Rather’s reptilian defensiveness and disclose all of the (doubtlessly) sordid details surrounding this story.

I say duty-bound because, as a broadcast television network, your livelihood is based entirely upon the acknowledgement that you serve the public’s trust in exchange for the rights to the public’s airwaves. This trust is not served by stonewalling, recriminations, and spiteful defensiveness. If CBS were a product that I, as a consumer, had to pay for, please be sure that I would do no such thing.

Currently, I am suspending judgment on this issue in order to see how Viacom, CBS, Clear Channel Communications, and KGPEi-47 conduct themselves in the coming days. If it becomes obvious that none of your organizations take your obligation to public service and responsibility to reporting the truth seriously, I shall begin to organize a boycott of all of your products and advertising sponsors’ products.

Moreover, I will write my representatives at all levels of government as well as television regulators in an effort to begin a public dialogue on the usage of the nation’s public airwaves by entities that act and think themselves unaccountable to the American public. The behavior of Mr.. Rather, 60 Minutes, and CBS News is unacceptable: nobody who trades on the public’s airwaves is above public scrutiny. Furthermore, no business unit of a publicly traded company like Clear Channel Communications or Viacom is above public scrutiny.

I look forward to a prompt, complete, and very public accounting of the behavior of your various business units and employees. Let me also assure you that if there is any way that I can be assist you in this process, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Andrew Schouten

Inspired by Andrew’s letter, I will be writing my own briefly and sending it to the same addressees listed in the above e-mail. They are:

60m@cbsnews.com

cctvinfo@clearchannel.com

nonmanagementdirectors@viacom.com

lisacdollinger@clearchannel.com

If you too are disgusted by this unacceptable attitude and the increasingly partisan actions of the MSM, why not join us? Let them know directly, as a member of the public that they should serve OBJECTIVELY, that their actions are unacceptable and unpalatable to many of us. Write them and fill their mailboxes with enough email that they will no longer be able to ignore us.

Posted by: Nomad at September 11, 2004 07:24 PM

mark buehner > “You are telling me you can learn nothing from looking at a photocopy?”

“Obviously not. You just won’t prove beyond any doubt that it wasn’t typed in 1973 on an IBM Executive or other office machine with similar capabilities.”

You could do it under the correct circumstances. It is however very unlikely. If Killian had included his email addy as an intrinsic part of the memo, one would likely conclude the document was fake. It is hardly useful to dismiss something like that out of hand, if you did you would never find the inconsistancy.

“I do have to repeat things around here: My only point was that bloggers began all this with a completely erroneous assumption, that proportional TNR with superscripts couldn’t be typed in ‘73.”

No bloggers began this by noting a number of unusual factors in the memo, at which point the guy from LGF typed the memo into Word with an 11 point NRT font and got a very, very close match including the identical margins and line breaks. The simply odds of that are staggering, particularly since anyone that used a typewriter knows about manual margin setting and how inconsistant it is. All the other details are just that.

The bottom line is that the odds of there being a typewriter from 1973 that produced a document extremely similar (if not exact) to a Word document completely by chance is enormous. Factor in the custom keys and specific typewriter model necessary to create the exact effect and you wander from what is POSSIBLE to what is plausible. Add to that the number of breaks from standard military procedure and the conclusion must be that no rational person could seriously think this was just an incrediably wild coincidence.
Occam’s Razor demands we assume this is a fraud and go from there. When someone can type up a copy of the memo as close as the Word version on a typewriter from 1973, we can revise that. But despite a 10,000$ prize no-one has come close to that yet. Every attempt i’ve seen on various ‘likely models’ has been way way off.

Posted by: mark buehner at September 11, 2004 07:29 PM

While it may be the case that we may lose the battle (because the damage has already been done), I am confident we will win the war. The alliance between the Democratic Party and the MSM is fractured (to what extent time will tell). The other parts of the MSM while they may not be able to definitively prove these memos are faked, they know it themselves and they know who provided the memos to CBS. The lid was blown on a content matter that wasn’t all that relevant, anyway. Any future “leaks” will be politely turned down. Net net, no October surprise. The fangs have been pulled on the Kerry slime machine. If the Kerry Campaign was smart the Clintonistas would be shown the door.

Posted by: Rich Blinne at September 11, 2004 07:41 PM

Mark Buehner
>The simply odds of that are staggering, particularly since anyone that used a typewriter knows about manual margin setting and how inconsistant it is

Well, not really. Margins were rigidly standardized back then, and Word’s defaults are still based on those standards. A Times New Roman font is a set of geometric definitions, and given the same margins, they’ll proportionally lay out words precisely the same way every time, even decades apart on vastly different technological platforms. It would be more surprising if the words didn’t line up.

My point is, if one is looking for a way to debunk these memos, it won’t be found by attempting a forensic analysis of typographic artifacts on a PDF scan of a copy of a fax of a copy of who-knows-what.

As for the $10,000 prize, all that proves is that nobody has yet found a specific version of the (probably) IBM Executive that can duplicate the memo. It doesn’t prove that such a machine never existed, or that it wasn’t in that TANG office.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 08:09 PM

Er, all that proves is that nobody has yet found a specific version of the (probably) IBM Executive that can duplicate the memo, and submitted the result for the surprise. I mean, if some dedicated neocon in Virginia has dredged out a 30 year old Executive from a stack of DoD surplus junk he picked up years ago (or whatever), and to his/her horror duplicated the darn thing, how likely is it that they’d apply for the prize? I’m not saying this has happened- it probably hasn’t, and won’t, but it’s useful to think about. I mean, be honest, how many bloggers here would speak up if they found themselves in that situation?

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 08:23 PM

General Petain, in France -

With respect to the capabilities and availability of the IBM Executive in which you place so much stock, did you read Darleen’s excellent post at September 11, 2004 05:59 PM? IF you did, READ it again. It answers, with authority and experience, the issues you raise.

Also, see TexasGal’s link to Byron York’s article that provides details of GWB’s actual guard service.

Posted by: Jim at September 11, 2004 08:42 PM

*Jim*… “Petain”? What if I start calling you “Jism”? Will that drag the discussion down to a level you’re more comfortable with or what?

Anyway nowhere in Darleen’s excellent post is there any proof that an IBM Executive couldn’t have been used to type those memos. On the contrary, it neatly confirms that in the mid-70s, in a frugal S&L office, there were was a typewriter capable of proportional spacing. This is in direct contradiction to the assertions of the first bloggers to go with this issue.

By the way, I don’t put any stock at all in the IBM Executive. Were the memos forged? Are they for real? I. Don’t. Care.

I’m just curious to know what happened.

Darleen said that her first impression on seeing the memos was that it would have been “impossible” to type them on an Executive. Being rational, she immediately changed that to “highly unlikely”. Certainly, hers wasn’t equipped with the same font, but I realize that’s not what she’s addressing.

So in 1984 on a business trip in Dallas, Texas, by complete accident I found myself in Dealy Plaza, having just visited a nearby office. I strolled over to the Texas Book Depository Building, looked up at the infamous sniper’s nest window, gazed at the acute angle down to Elm Street, and from my perspective, had a remarkable gut feeling that, no way could that pathetic twerp have gotten off those shots. I just “felt it”, and the idea stayed with me, such as it was, for a few years, until I eventually thought about it critically again and went back to the idea that it was most probable Lee Oswald did it alone, from that window.

Gut feelings aren’t always correct, or complete, or well understood.

(That was my first and last reference to JFK, period)

So what would you guys do if you found an IBM Executive that matched (close enough, anyway, since the PDFs are so degraded that there would always be points and fractions of points here and there out of whack that’ll never quite line up). Would you speak up and try for the cash and media spotlight, knowing that you might single-handedly tip the election over to Kerry?

Or would you go dark and hush hush, maybe even shag the thing to the nearest junkyard crusher and chuck it in to protect your president and your political ideals? Not to mention avoiding all that hate mail and the inevitable, menacing anonymous threats from fringe lunatics that would permanently transform the way you live… What would you do?

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 09:47 PM

GPiF - You know, for someone who Does. Not. Care. about whether the docs are forgeries or not, you’re expending a lot of wind in the matter.

Perhaps it’s easier for you to dispute the first hundred or so bloggers who went blindly in your favorite fog, blythely unaware of their lack of Ivy League Journalism School diplomas - than it is to suffer the slings and arrows of the 2 or 3 million bloggers who happen to be experts in things the morons at CBS never considered.

That’s fine. You dropped your car keys over there, but the light’s better over here. Or at least that appears to be your logic.

An ANG office with an IBM Executive in 1971 - they’d have a better chance of having an espresso machine and microwave oven. Maybe all the clerks were driving Corvette Stingrays, too.

But fine, the light’s better over there - ignore the fact that his wife, his son, the people who knew him knew he never typed anything in his life, that he never kept private files (at home, or anywhere), that an officer of his rank was just as likely to entitle a memorandum (NOT a memo) ‘SNAFU’ as he was to title one ‘CYA’.

But, right. You. Don’t. Care.

So quit wasting your breath. You’re trying to take a sip out of a fire hose now.

PS I‘m glad to hear that your gut says Lee Harvey Oswald. On your next post you can tell us how the bullet traveled down through JFK, exited, gained altitude again and came down through Gov. Connally’s wrist in the front seat. That one’s always puzzled me.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 11, 2004 10:09 PM

You’ve got to admire those French guys, they don’t give up in trying to defend their candidate Kerry and shaft President Bush.

I see French Patton is still wriggling around, trying to throw any dirt he can on the evidence that the CBS documents are fabrications.

He claims that he accepts the possibility the documents could be fakes but then every comment he makes is to try to debunk that possibility. None from the opposite perspective. Hardly a dispassionate searcher for truth as he tries to present himself.

The blogging community has blown apart the forgeries and the dishonest way they were used by CBS. Time for French Patton to find another dead horse to flog.

Posted by: OzMC at September 11, 2004 10:32 PM

LOL. GPiF A wise guy by the name of Gabriel once told me that I oughta be careful in any argument with you. He’s had a few other succinct words to say over the past 16 months or so, and I kindof admire the young man…

BTW. Do they consume horseflesh in the South of France, or do they just ride them?

I don’t get out into the fog as much as I used to, back in those days when I had a passion for fog, and I don’t have cable spewing crap on my floor either. But I did get a nice email today from a blogger who told me that Fox says the Documents in question are forgeries.

My 2bhat is still worth that, but can we believe the Pentagon?

Who you votin’ for?

LOL.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 11, 2004 11:28 PM

“As for the $10,000 prize, all that proves is that nobody has yet found a specific version of the (probably) IBM Executive that can duplicate the memo. It doesn’t prove that such a machine never existed, or that it wasn’t in that TANG office.”

Or explained why an expensive typesetting typewriter customized with superscript keys that was used to print advertisements would be in a NG Lt Cols office in Texas being used to write simple memos generally written by hand. Again, is that more reasonable than someone printing it in Word as a hoax? THe problem here is no-one has been able to debunk the Word theory in the least, while the typewriter theory demands a number of highly unlikely scenarios looped together. And the only witnesses believe the memo is likely forged based on the habbits of the man. Occam’s Razor.

Posted by: mark buehner at September 11, 2004 11:53 PM

GenP

Amazingly, you sound like many criminal defense attorneys I’ve had the [mis]fortune to see working. You have cherry picked your arguments and ignored the inconvenient facts that may intrude. You argue to be convinced beyond all doubt, even if such doubt is unreasonable. I cannot prove beyond all doubt that 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typewriters for 1000 years won’t produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but I sleep well at night realizing the plausibility of the scenario is zero.

The totality of the evidence, first pointed out by the implausibility of a document produced in 1973 on a standard military issue typewriter by an assigned secretary or clerk-typist, would almost exactly match, on points far exceeding even finger printing, with a document produced on default settings on a PC in 2004 using MS Word, therefore leading into even greater scrutiny of format, language and protocol inconsistencies does not make this something in which someone can bat their eyelashes and demur making a judgment. You conveniently sidestepped my counter challenge in the exact opposite direction…take a known Killian produced document, produced on 9/5/73 from the same office as CBS’s alleged 8/18 memo and try and reproduce it with default MSWord settings and fonts with the resulting exact overlay as the 8/18 hoax memo as I linked previously.

And another thing

Margins were rigidly standardized back then

WTF are you talking about? Have you ever even seen a typewriter let along worked on one?
The secretary or clerk typist set the margins BY HAND. And they could vary slightly from document to document even if you didn’t reset the margins depending on if you accidently jostled the little metal paper guide. IF you typewriter had one, many just had hash marks on the machine itself and one eyeballed lining the paper up. Also, unless you took some extra steps in rolling the paper halfway through, releasing the tension on the roller, and lining up the top and bottom edges, then reapplying the roller paper, more than likely your text would not be exactly parallel with the top and bottom paper edges.

Using a typewriter correctly and accurately was a learned skill if not almost an art. That is why, IMHO, the forgers of these memos was either relatively young, or an older male who always had secretaries to do their typing.

Posted by: Darleen at September 12, 2004 12:40 AM

Oh, good lord… PIMF

then reapplying the roller paper should be “then reapplying the roller pressure”.

And another thing. I was taught in high school business classes in 1971-72 that standard business letters had one inch left and right margins. MSWord default is 1.25. We were also taught that professional correspondence never uses contractions (as seen in the 8/18 hoax, but not the known memo of 9/5).

Kinda like finding the Diary of Joan of Arc and having her write about how her visions were really “gnarly, man.” SURE, it’s not impossible she was talking about an oak…but….

Posted by: Darleen at September 12, 2004 12:52 AM

Too many people are worried that Dan Rather and CBS News are going to get away with these forgeries. I think CBS News has a secret nemesis: CBS Entertainment! Tens of millions of CSI junkies are not going to let this die.

Posted by: dpwiener at September 12, 2004 02:05 AM

One thing is for sure, you guys can’t read to save your lives. I never said the memos were legit and I’m certainly not defending them.

Did anyone ever notice I was posting on a different issue?

Gnarly, man. Have fun in the fog.

Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 12, 2004 08:42 AM

“Documents using proportional fonts quite similar to Times New Roman were being produced by IBM typewriters as early as 1954 (yes, 1954).

Anyone who attempts forensic analysis of typography or signatures using scans of copies of faxes is a wanker.

The only way to prove or disprove those memos is

1) Examine the originals (or evaluate the earliest copies available).

2) Trace their provenance.

Personally, I think the content tends to match what we already know about Mr Bush’s final year of slackertude in TANG (1968-1971 seem to have been characterized by more responsible behavior).”

GPiF - Thought I’d refresh your memory here. Tell us how this wasn’t what you wrote or how we read it incorrectly. Sounds like defense to me.

Of course, if Custer had kept a war bonnet in his knapsack maybe he could have wandered out of Little Big Horn unscathed.

It’s the Bob Dylan defense folks, when people understand too clearly what you’re trying to say - assert loudly “THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT AT ALL.”
Remember not to elaborate after that, lest the crowd follow you down an alternate path and stone you there as well.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 12, 2004 11:29 AM

Darleen and torpedo_eight - great posts!

Point - Set - Match

Posted by: Jim at September 12, 2004 01:07 PM

Jim LOL. No great loss. He’ll just get befogged on the whine he’s having with his cheese.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 12, 2004 01:42 PM

On another note, Jim… “With that, I’m off to read the funnies, and bid the 70% utterly moronic, 20% mediocre and 10% quite intelligent and pleasant postings of the Command Post Blog adieu once again.”

Which category do you fall into, Jim?

LOL.

The italicized portion Posted by: General Patton, in France at September 11, 2004 02:15 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 12, 2004 01:46 PM

Well….here’s a link to an article in U.S. News & World report (which I hardly think can be casually dismissed as liberal media) that I think makes the memos entirely moot:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

Posted by: Jatsby at September 13, 2004 03:22 AM

No, Jatsby. Don’t worry the media colludes with the DNC to lie to you. Don’t worry they beat a dead horse and ignore the Swift Vets. Just keep posting articles on a debunked topic and everything will be ok.

Posted by: jones at September 13, 2004 07:40 AM

ah Jones, your irony is so refreshing! The media colludes with the DNC….you are hilarious! When I think of the hundreds of free hours of mediatime the SwiftVets managed to slop up like free gravy because of the media’s persistence in taking the low-hanging fruit stories (where any actual journalistic review would require that bit of extra effort so why bother?) instead of sticking to the verified facts (you know…”the official reports don’t matter because Kerry wrote them himself!” instead of acknowledging that any such reports are vetted and re-vetted, that the entire medals process is much more than “hey, I’ll write myself a glowing recommendation and get a silver star!” which is the most simplistic schoolyard denial of the U.S. Government’s medal review process) or their insistence on reporting transparently false trails; the entire argument over memo fonts is so much smoke up the ass…by the White House’s OWN CALCULATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION, Bush wasn’t simply AWOL, he was a Deserter. On and on….some people here willfully ignore factual, verifiable data to promote their views, and that has been shared time and again by the mainstream media. Although when internationally reputable media question some of the drivel, you then dismiss them as DNC colluders…how sadly laughable and convenient! If you’re going to dismiss the NYTimes, for instance, because you are able detect a bias (or more likely a neutrality)…how can you then cite FOX or Sean Hannity or the O’Reilly Report, each of which proudly boast of their overt bias? Your hypocrisy is stunning.

And, why do you try to reduce things to Party? Why does it have to be a DNC plot when someone produces a public record that contradicts you? What is your explanation for the White House not contradicting any aspect of those memos? That’s a very simple question that I hope you can keep political parties out of: please explain why the Bush Administration does not, either categorically or in ANY part, deny the gist or content of any of the memos? I’ll wait for the namecalling and evasion that generally characterizes your replies.

Posted by: Jatsby at September 13, 2004 04:43 PM

You’re suggesting that U.S. News & World Report concocts stories because of DNC interference? It sounds as though you’re saying that even if your face was literally rubbed in factual, verified, hard data that contridicts your view…you’d gleefully continue to deny it. Just how, may I ask, does that make you or your views valuable in any way other than as a dogmatist?

Posted by: Jatsby at September 13, 2004 04:58 PM

You are beyond beleif. I don’t know where to beging. If you are so clueless to think the New Media has the size and clout of the Old Media, you are nuts?

By the way, do you know what AWOL means?

Posted by: jones at September 13, 2004 08:10 PM